CRIMPRO

SANDIGANBAYAN: In order for the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive original

jurisdiction over a public official, the offense committed must be in relation
to his office.
Title
GR No. 159747
MANGONON vs. CA
Date: April 13, 2004
Ponente: AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
GREGORIO B. HONASAN II Petitioner
THE PANEL OF INVESTIGATING PROSECUTORS
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (LEO DACERA,
SUSAN F. DACANAY, EDNA A. VALENZUELA AND
SEBASTIAN F. CAPONONG, JR.), CIDG-PNPP/DIRECTOR EDUARDO MATILLANO, and HON.
OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO,
Respondents
Nature of the case: Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against the DOJ Panel
and its mebmers, CIDG-PNP-P/Director Matillano and Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo, attributing
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the DOJ Panel in issuing an order on the ground that the
DOJ has no jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation
FACTS
1. An affidavit-complaint was filed with the DOJ by respondent CIDG-PNP/P Dir. Eduardo
Matillano (Matillano) alleging that he has found that a crime of coup detat was committed
by a military personnal and Sen. Gringo Honasan II on July 27,2003. Matillano was able to
secure the affidavit of AFP Major Perfecto Ragil (Ragil).
2. Ragil stated in his affidavit that he is a member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and
was invited to the National Recovery Program (NRP) with a certain Captain Alejano. In the
said meeting, Sen. Gringo Honasan presided the gathering wherein a plan on overthrowing
the government through force, violence and armed struggle in order to achieve the goals of
NRP. Ragil opposed the proposition but due to threats on his person, he was forced to
pursue it and even join their blood compact.
3. Honasan and his counsel appeared before the DOJ and filed a motion for clarificication
questioning DOJs jurisdiction over the case asserting that since the imputed facts were
committed in relation to his public office, it is the Office of the Ombudsman, not the DOJ,
that has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation. They further alleged that it is
the Sandiganbayan and not the regular courts that should take cognizance of the case
since they are public officials with Salary Grade 31. DOJ thereafter issued an order deferring
the resolution of Honasans motion to clarify jurisdiction.
4. The Court heard the oral arguments of issues pertaining to the jurisdiction to conduct
preliminary investigation over the charge of coup dett against Honasan, the validitiy of the
Ombudsman-DOJ Circular, and the alleged grave abuse of discretion in deferring the motion
for clarification.
Petitioners Contentions:
1. The Office of Ombudsman has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation.
2. DOJ Panel is neither authorized nor deputized under OMB-DOJ Joint Ciruclar No. 95-001 to
conduct the preliminary investigation of Honasan.
3. OMB-DOJ Joint Circular NO. 95-001 is ultra vires for being violative of the Constitution.
4. Since Honasan is charged with coup detat in relation to his office, it is the Ombudsman
which has the jurisdiction, not the DOJ Panel.
DOJ Panels Arguments:
1. DOJ has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation pursuant to Sec. 3, Chapter 1,
Title III, Book IV of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 in relation to PD No. 1275, as
amended by PD No. 1513.
2. Honasan Is charged with a crime that is not directly nor intimately related to his public
office as a Senator.
3. Challenging the constitutionality of the OMB-DOJ Joint circular is misplaced.
ISSUE/S

I.

Whether or not the DOJ Panel has full authority and jurisdiction to conduct the
preliminary investigation over Honasan -- YES

RATIO
The authority of DOJ Panel is based not on the assailed OMB-DOJ Joint Circular but on the
provisions of the 1987 Adminstrative Code under Chapter I, Title III, Book IV, governing the
DOJ. To wit:
Sec. 1. Declaration of policy - It is the declared policy of the State to provide the government with
a principal law agency which shall be both its legal counsel and prosecution arm; administer
the criminal justice system in accordance with the accepted processes thereof consisting in the
investigation of the crimes, prosecution of offenders and administration of the correctional
system; ...
Sec. 3. Powers and Functions - To accomplish its mandate, the Department shall have the
following powers and functions:
...
(2) Investigate the commission of crimes, prosecute offenders and administer the
probation and correction system;
Furthermore, it is supplemented by Section 1 of PD 1275 which states:
SECTION 1. Creation of the National Prosecution Service; Supervision and Control of the Secretary
of Justice. There is hereby created and established a National Prosecution Service under the
supervision and control of the Secretary of Justice, to be composed of the Prosecution Staff in the
Office of the Secretary of Justice and such number of Regional State Prosecution Offices, and
Provincial and City Fiscal's Offices as are hereinafter provided, which shall be primarily
responsible for the investigation and prosecution of all cases involving violations of
penal laws.
With respect to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman being questioned, it has concurrent jurisdiction
together with the Sandiganbayan and the regular courts as regards to the criminal offenses that
may be committed by the public officials. It is not exclusive. The Office of the Ombudsman was
made to create a special office to investigate all criminal complaints against public officers.
With respect to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, it shall have exlclusive original jurisdiction
when (1) the offense committed by the public officer is in relation to his office and (2) the
penalty prescribed be higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for 6 years or a fine of
6,000 Php. In this case, although the Court found that the second requisite was met, the first
requirement is wanting. Coup detat is a crime committed by public officials but not in relation
to ones office. Presiding the meeting of the NRP and planning out ways to overthrow the
government by Honasan are in no ways in relation to his office as a senator.
RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED
Notes
2-S 2016-17 (SALVACION)
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/apr2004/gr_159747_2004.html